Letters to the Editor
-
Surprising article
It was a surprising article, so light weight in nature. Perhaps Cass Sunstein's book is intended for first year college students. I was disappointed that he did not mention the correlation of the internet with the proliferation of newspapers a century ago. Then, because newspapers were so abundant, most newspapers adhered to a strident political ideology to make them unique, as web sites do today. Most newspapers catered to a niche market since it was the only market available for a newly formed business; they could be guaranteed a starting income. Eventually, to become more profitable the newspapers had to appeal to a larger audience, thus their political views had to become less stringent and more encompassing. Will this happen with the internet?
Mr. Sunstein should have mentioned President Lincoln’s cabinet when mentioning U.S. presidents who have had a diversity of views surrounding them. Mr. Lincoln brought in people who ran against him, from both major parties, into his cabinet.
The comment that Mr. Sunstein thought George Bush could be a very good president needs to be substantiated by Mr. Sunstein. My analysis of George Bush before his 2000 election victory showed he was not well educated, bailed out of several failing businesses, not caring about people outside of his social class, vastly inexperienced in governmental matters (role of Texas governor is somewhat unique in its lack of power), a pawn of powerful oil interests within and without this country, skilled at lying to the public, and completely ignorant of what was awaiting him. Along with that, he was a confessed heavy partier and drinker up to the age of 40, so he had a lot of catching up to acquire the skills and fortitude to run a country of 300 million people. Stopping there, I saw no indication that he could be a very good president, rather he looked like a disaster in the making.
-
Comity, anyone?
If Sunstein's thesis is valid, that in some golden past in the United States political culture, where there was an unavoidable discourse of diverse views in presumably the unavoidable plethora of print, and all somehow absorbed and pondered by extremists from both sides that brought forth the best impulses in people, then how do you explain the Civil War?
-
@gregrocker...
Spot on dude. Every word! These fuzzy headed ivory tower types, Christian propagandists and popular writers in America always dreaming up some perfect golden past of the United States where every one got along and believed in Jesus and understood each others' views. It's pure fantasy. No such period ever existed in this nation's history. This has always been a backwards, uncivilized, redneck, partisan, sectarian, violent nation, and an ungrateful one to boot toward those who do their best to bring the good news of civilization. For most of our history, the process put in place by the founders to prevent one of the bubble headed morons from rising to the highest offices in the land worked pretty well most of the time, and when it didn't there was always Congress to dilute the impact. What they didn't count on was one of them coming from their own patrician class at the same time the jesus freaks (who have always been with us) traded in their white sheets for suits, learned how to talk, got a university degree from some backwater, holy hell-fire, swamp water religious school and then got a bunch of themselves elected to Congress.
The culture of the United States has always been bi-polar and sczhoid. The uses Americans make of the internet merely amplify that. If Mr. Sustein's thesis holds water then the same thing ought to be happening in other countries. The world is not fragmenting because of the internet. The world is fragmenting because of the ever increasing world population, the downward spiral of natural resources, the ever present and increasing competition and squabble over energy sources and the rise of religious fundamentalism of every stripe throughout the world.
-
What my post presupposes is that....
...maybe it doesn't?
Just because people have adamant beliefs about something doesn't mean they're wrong. So according to Sunstein we all need to reconsider slavery, civil rights, hell, even the Constitution (there are definitely other ways to rule a nation than democracy as constructed by that document) in order to be "smart?" I agree there are many instances where there is only black and white to the issue, and that seeing things only in that way may be close minded, but, uhhh, like the other people here, I find it hard to say that the internet has made me dumber irt to politics.
As my subject line says, I can now read a lot more about the issues than I once could. I know even more of the atrocities the Bush has committed that never get reported in the news. I can read actual news instead of having to sit through a 3 minute CNNHN Primetime segment in which the "news" is dissecting what the church's role on divorce should be by having the "anchor" (Mike Galanos) read verses from the Bible to a priest (didn't they have this argument a couple hundred years ago, btw? I swear this segment was on yesterday) or having to listen to anchors point out that Rudy G. didn't know the exact survival rates from Prostate cancer in the US and the UK when they can't manage to fact check claims about death rates in Iraq or the presence of WMD. So why am I dumber for reading the internet? Because I could better news from teevee or newspapers that I read online anyway? Mindboggling....
-
echo chambers
I'm reminded, reading about Sunstein's thoughts on echo chambers, of a truly great television moment from Aaron Sorkin's Sports Night. Angry at one of his employees for not sharing a disagreement, the editor says: "It's taken me a lot of years but I've come around to this: If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. And if you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you." It'd be nice if more of us could come around to that position, too.